On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:48:04PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote: > > > >Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four > >highly paid, very well known and rather well respected lawyers have > >told me, seperately, that we should exactly do that. > > I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit, but if I understand your > point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues > lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files > while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for > Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already > (http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples.
/me nods > Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my > disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that > is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is > distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. This is in agreement with other US copyright-law "executive summaries" I've read. In practice here, .info submissions go via SourceForge, which is slathered with notices that it is for "open source" software development only, and Fink is distributed under GPL. Especially by that latter point, it appears that anyone contributing a file to be part of fink would be placing that file under GPL as well. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
